Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 57:227 (Jul 1900)
Article: The Economic Interpretation Of The Fall Of Man
Author: Thomas Nixon Carver

BSac 57:227 (July 1900) p. 483

The Economic Interpretation Of The Fall Of Man

Prof. Thomas Nixon Carver

One of the first things learned by the student of comparative religion is the broad distinction between nature religions and ethical religions; the former based on a theory of nature and the latter on a theory of good and evil. Since the former attempt to account for the phenomena of physical nature, and the latter for the existence of evil, it is natural that the former should offer us charms and incantations against the powers of nature, and that the latter should offer us a plan of salvation from sin.

The failure to observe this fundamental distinction, together with the failure to remember that our religion belongs to the class of ethical religions, has led to some popular misapprehensions concerning the opening chapters of Genesis. At the outset of this discussion, it is necessary to recall the fact that the story of the Fall is simply an account of the entrance of evil into the world, and not an attempt to furnish scientific information about the material universe. The theory of evil there presented may be tested by some of the results of recent economic analysis.

It ought, perhaps, to go without saying, that the word “evil,” as here used, has no connection with physical pains or calamities. If lightning strikes a man, or a tree falls on him; if a wild beast devours him, or microbes waste his tissues, the results are regarded as evil from another standpoint. But from the standpoint of ethics or an ethical religion such events have no moral quality. For such things

BSac 57:227 (July 1900) p. 484

the Scriptures offer no explanation, and from them they offer no salvation. The evils we have to account for are in man’s heart, or in his social surroundings. Evil, in the broadest sense, may be said to be a lack of adjustment to a man’s environment. In the sense in which we use the term, it means a lack of adjustment to that part of one’s environment which consists of other men. This is still a broader term than “sin,” which implies a knowledge of moral qualities and a consciousness of guilt.

For evils of this kind we must find the occasion in an antagonism of interests, real or supposed, among mankind. It may be that, in a broad philosophical sense, the real interests of all men harmonize. But in order to support such a doctrine a somewhat specialized philosophical definition of self-interest has to be adopted. The undoubted fact is, that, as men understand their own interests, these interests are not always harmonious. So far as men can understand their own needs, two men frequently need the same thing, when only one can have it. It may be essential to the preservation of life, and the man who fails to...